US President Donald Trump’s outbursts against NATO allies, claiming “we spend all the money,” left a defining mark, particularly during his second presidential term.

At the 2025 summit in The Hague, member states pledged to allocate 5% of their annual GDP to defense by 2035. This marked a monumental leap from the 2% commitment made at the 2014 Wales summit.

This 5% commitment encompasses two primary categories of defense investment. The first is “core defense requirements”: allies agreed to dedicate at least 3.5% of their GDP to meeting baseline defense needs and fulfilling NATO Capability Targets, based on the agreed definition of NATO defense expenditure.

The second is “defense and security-related expenditure”: under this heading, member states will allocate up to 1.5% of their GDP to broader defense and security-related investments, such as protecting critical infrastructure, defending networks, ensuring civil preparedness and resilience, and strengthening innovation and the defense industrial base.

According to NATO’s own figures, European allies and Canada increased their defense spending by over $90 billion in 2025, representing an approximate 20% increase compared to 2024.

Official NATO reporting also indicates that European nations and Canada have steadily increased their collective defense investments over the past decade: rising from 1.4% of their total GDP in 2014 to 2.3% in 2025, culminating in a total investment of over $571 billion in defense spending this year.

According to NATO statistics, the United States consistently spends upwards of 3.5% to 4% of its GDP on defense. In absolute terms, of course, no single NATO power can match the expenditure of the American military.

Yet the issue of “burden-sharing,” which became highly visible during the Trump era, is not new. Setting aside the debates during the detente periods of the Cold War, American defense spending and public debt began to swell significantly in the late 1990s, spinning out of control in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Coupled with the rise of China and the US declaration of a military pivot to Asia, this ignited an open debate on how the “security architecture” of the Euro-Atlantic axis would transform.

Bush’s call

Attending the 2008 NATO summit in Romania, then-US President George W. Bush laid out a lengthy list of threats, primarily featuring Iraq and Afghanistan but also spanning Iran and Northeast Asia, before outlining the measures required to shield Europe from “missile threats.”

Bush stated:

“To build a strong NATO Alliance, a strong European defense capability is also essential. Therefore, at this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations. America believes that if Europeans invest in their own defense, we will be stronger and more capable when we act together.”

Recently, an article written on behalf of the George W. Bush Presidential Center for the Ankara summit revisited the issue of “burden-sharing.” Authored by Elizabeth Kennedy Trudeau, a former State Department official, the piece references past debates, noting: “Today, it is abundantly clear that the endless debate over burden-sharing is no longer a theoretical issue, and that is also how the public perceives it.”

According to Trudeau, “Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine,” “instability in the Middle East,” “China’s growing ambitions,” and emerging threat domains such as cyber threats, disinformation, and vulnerable supply chains have radically altered the geopolitical landscape. Consequently, NATO must adapt to this new reality.

Pointing out that European allies have increased their defense spending, the author welcomes the Continent’s steps toward assuming greater responsibility for “collective defense,” asserting: “This is not because the United States is pulling away from NATO; rather, a stronger Europe makes this powerful alliance even stronger.”

A sharp rebuke from Obama’s Defense Secretary Gates

However, the most scathing critique directed at the Old Continent from the US came during the presidency of Barack Obama.

In a university address, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued that Europeans’ reluctance to employ military force was “limiting NATO’s ability to conduct effective military operations.”

At the time, redrafting the NATO alliance’s core strategic concept was on the agenda. In his speech, Gates called for sweeping reforms within the organization. He remarked that NATO’s success in preventing conflicts from erupting in post-WWII Europe had inadvertently fostered a new set of concerns:

“The demilitarization of Europe—where large swaths of the public and political class are opposed to military force and the risks that go with it—has gone from being a blessing in the 20th century to an obstacle to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.”

Gates warned that unless NATO members maintained robust militaries and made the necessary budgetary commitments to modernize their forces, Europe would remain vulnerable to threats.

The Secretary stated, “Real or perceived weakness does not merely invite miscalculation and aggression; on a more fundamental level, the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to act and fight together to confront common threats.”

Defining NATO as “a military alliance with real-world, life-and-death obligations,” Gates noted that the ongoing effort to “rethink and reshape” the alliance’s strategic mission came at a critical juncture.

“Currently, the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems. NATO’s budget crisis is but one example, and it is a symptom of deeper issues within NATO regarding how threat perception, requirement determination, prioritization, and resource allocation are handled.”

In a speech in Brussels the following year, Gates also criticized Germany for not participating in the NATO airstrikes aimed at toppling Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He warned that patience was wearing thin in the US Congress toward Europeans who were reluctant to stand “on their own feet”:

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the broader American body politic—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

It is worth recalling that an NBC report at the time remarked, “This assessment could prompt Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the US, upon which they have relied for much of their security over the past six decades.”

Moreover, the controversy erupted immediately after the withdrawal of an American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction in US troop levels on the continent.

During the Q&A session following his address, Gates also remarked that his generation’s “emotional and historical attachment” to NATO was “fading over time.”

Without naming them, Gates delivered a sharp critique of “countries apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to shoulder the growing security burden left by cuts in European defense budgets.”

Warnings from Hillary Clinton

A similar theme was voiced by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton observed, “NATO is turning into a two-tiered alliance, where the proportion of member states willing and able to pay for and bear the burden of collective defense is steadily shrinking.”

Intriguingly, this assessment closely mirrored remarks by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at an annual national conference in Norway, where he noted that “the United States accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s defense spending.”

In her 2010 “Future of NATO” speech, Clinton stated:

“You will also hear this from Secretary Gates: despite historical and entirely understandable reasons why European countries have not yet committed to a level of per capita defense spending—not to the level we would like to see you reach, which is our level, but higher than where most of you are now—we believe this is a subject that must be discussed honestly. Because many of the infrastructure challenges we will face in the confrontation of these new threats—such as energy security or cybersecurity—will require member states to invest more so that we can network through NATO. It will be less about NATO doing the job than about member states coordinating and collaborating with their investments.”

Divergence in Europe

The impact of the 5% spending floor set at the Hague summit varies significantly across European states.

Reuters points out that two distinct groups have emerged since the decision: the first comprises Germany and mostly Nordic and Eastern European countries, which possess the fiscal flexibility to scale up spending; the second consists of several major actors struggling to achieve the same.

Guntram Wolff, a researcher at the economic think tank Bruegel, notes of Europe’s three largest economies after Germany: “The UK, for instance, cannot manage this. Neither can France, nor Italy.”

According to a draft budget obtained by Reuters ahead of Monday’s cabinet meeting, Germany will leverage a rule change exempting defense items from strict borrowing limits, doubling its spending to over 200 billion euros ($228.38 billion) between now and 2030.

Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia—countries where the perception of the Russian threat is most acute—have already made significant strides toward meeting the new targets. Warsaw, in particular, allocated 4.3% of its GDP to defense last year.

On the other hand, this initiative faces steep political and financial hurdles. Last week, Britain announced a plan for £15 billion in additional defense spending, to be partially funded by cuts in other areas.

However, it has emerged that a third of this sum remains unfunded, presenting an early budgetary headache for the presumptive new prime minister, Andy Burnham.

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is expected to announce at the summit that Rome will increase its core and non-core defense spending to 2.8% of GDP in 2026, despite carrying one of Europe’s heaviest debt burdens.

However, because rising military expenditures are unpopular with many voters ahead of next year’s general election, most of the increase will be covered by domestic security spending, such as policing duties.

France, through detailed plans unveiled in April, aims to increase its defense spending from the current level of around 2% to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade, all while trying to bring its overall budget deficit into alignment with Eurozone rules. With presidential elections on the horizon, how the Macron administration will generate this surplus remains a matter of curiosity.

The Spanish government, meanwhile, is not expected to waver in its commitment to cap defense spending at no more than 2.1% of GDP. Its plan is to redirect new resources largely toward technologies with civilian applications.

Furthermore, some countries appear to inspire little confidence at NATO headquarters: NATO officials have questioned claims by the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Albania that they have met the old alliance target of 2% of GDP, requesting that these nations revise and resubmit their spending figures.

France has adopted a more open stance toward the potential sale of the French-Italian SAMP/T air defense system to Türkiye, signaling a shift after years of staunch opposition.

Sources speaking to Reuters indicated that this change in posture followed discussions between French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on June 25, held on the sidelines of a meeting ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Türkiye.

However, Reuters reported that negotiations remain in their early stages. “There was clearly a lack of transparency before, but now there is transparency,” a source familiar with the talks said.

Conversely, the French presidency stated that the Reuters report contained “significant inaccuracies” and declined to confirm the information. The Elysée Palace did not specify what those inaccuracies were and refused to elaborate.

Sources noted that while Paris has set aside some of the political reservations that previously blocked progress, hesitations still persist.

Türkiye, France, and Italy initiated cooperation between 2017 and 2018 under a potential long-range air defense program, which envisioned joint development and co-production. However, the project ground to a halt as relations between Paris and Ankara deteriorated over disputes in Syria, Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean, the latter involving Greece and Cyprus.

The SAMP/T, also known as “Mamba,” is manufactured by Eurosam, a French-Italian consortium that brings together MBDA France, MBDA Italy, and Thales. The system can track dozens of targets simultaneously, intercept multiple threats at once, and is marketed as the only European-made system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.

Frequently described as the closest European equivalent to the US Patriot system, analysts remain divided on its efficacy. Analysts point out that the system has not been deployed in active combat for years.

Türkiye is seeking to acquire the system as part of its planned integrated air and missile defense network, known as the “Steel Dome” (Çelik Kubbe).

A source added that Meloni and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the matter during a telephone call on July 3.

Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler told Reuters in June that Ankara is evaluating options, including the US Patriot and the SAMP/T systems, and remains open to cooperation that includes technology transfer and co-production.

A Turkish official noted that the process had been stalled since 2020 due to tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and European Union sanctions. “At present, there seems to be political will from all three parties (Türkiye, Italy, France) to move this process forward,” the official said.

Outside of Paris and Rome, Singapore is the only country to have imported the system. However, in recent years, the system has been transferred to Ukraine, and France deployed it this year to help the United Arab Emirates defend itself against Iranian missile strikes. Additionally, Italy deployed the system to Türkiye in mid-June as part of NATO defense planning.

Any potential agreement would likely center on the next-generation version of the system, which is currently being distributed to the French and Italian militaries.

Officials stated that Erdogan and Macron are scheduled to hold a meeting to discuss bilateral issues within the framework of the NATO summit. Erdogan had previously sought to persuade Macron to drop his opposition during the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, following a thaw in bilateral relations.

Two sources cautioned that France would need to appease Greece and Cyprus regarding any potential sale. France has signed strategic defense agreements with both nations.

For years, Turkish officials have privately and publicly viewed France as the primary political obstacle to the program. Italy, by contrast, has long favored sharing the SAMP/T system with Türkiye to deepen defense industry cooperation.

The issue regained momentum last year as Ankara intensified efforts to strengthen its missile defense capabilities amid regional instability, and as NATO allies re-evaluated defense cooperation and capability requirements.

Sources emphasized that France’s newly open posture should not be interpreted as an approved sale.

“This is just a beginning,” said Murat Aslan, a defense and security researcher at the Ankara-based think tank SETA. “Even if France agrees to the sale, there is a long road ahead.”

The structural transition toward a “European NATO” has accelerated rapidly amid a scaling back of US assets within the alliance and strategic preparations for a partial American withdrawal from the continent.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and senior NATO generals report that rapid progress is being made on the “Europeanization” of the military alliance.

As confirmed by the US Commander of NATO Allied Joint Force Command, General Alexus Grynkewich, European member states have succeeded in replacing a significant volume of US military aircraft, warships, and military units within just a few weeks, after Washington withdrew them from NATO availability in early June.

European units are currently deployed and on standby to replace the departing US forces.

Last week, Pistorius officially approved the designation of the 1st German-Netherlands Corps in Valga, Estonia, as the tactical headquarters for all NATO operations in Estonia and Latvia.

This corps operates in parallel with the German-Polish-Danish Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin, Poland, which continues to serve as the headquarters for alliance operations in Poland and Lituania.

The development of a “European NATO” has been met with approval in Washington. Within the Pentagon, officials are referring to this transition as “NATO 3.0,” a restructuring designed to relieve the burden on the US, thereby enabling American operations in other theaters.

Washington has also praised Germany’s leadership in driving this transition.

Europe replaces the US

Plans to expand the operational activities of European member states within NATO—ensuring the alliance remains functional during a crisis even without the US—have been systematically executed since the beginning of last year.

These initiatives are driven by the potential inauguration of US President Donald Trump for a second term and the ongoing uncertainty over whether he will act on his repeated threats to withdraw the US from NATO.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal in April, while individual NATO member states initially took the lead on these initiatives, the efforts gained significant momentum late last year when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz decided that Germany would join the transition.

Concretely, the objective is to replace the US presence—which has historically been dominant at all levels in terms of both personnel and equipment—with officers and weapons systems from European nations.

For example, in the most recent major command restructuring announced in early February, European generals were promoted to lead Allied Joint Force Command Naples and Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk in Virginia, both of which were previously commanded by US generals.

NATO exercises are also increasingly being conducted under European leadership or exclusively with European troops.

Gaps filled, except for heavy bombers

A few days ago, European NATO member states took another step forward in this transition.

Shortly before the force generation conference held at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, in early June, the US withdrew a large number of aircraft, drones, ships, and submarines from NATO availability.

This decision meant that these assets ceased to be available for designated NATO operations.

The withdrawal affected, among other assets, one of two long-range bomber wings, 54 of 153 fighter jets, and half of the cruiser and destroyer units.

Last week, it was reported that European NATO members had managed to “largely bridge” these gaps ahead of the upcoming NATO summit, a development confirmed by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), US General Alexus Grynkewich.

According to reports, no suitable replacement has yet been found for the US long-range bombers. However, Grynkewich’s deputy, John Stringer, stated that the overall process serves as evidence of a “stronger Europe” within NATO.

New German-Dutch joint headquarters in the Baltics

Last week, the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) and the Dutch Armed Forces took a further step in Estonia.

In Valga, located near the Latvian border, the 1st German-Netherlands Corps officially assumed the role of tactical headquarters for all NATO operations in Estonia and Latvia in the presence of Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

Established in 1995, the corps was previously deployed primarily in Afghanistan. It has now been directly integrated into preparation efforts for a potential conflict with Russia.

This transition has altered the distribution of operational responsibilities in the Baltic region. The Multinational Corps Northeast, based in Szczecin, Poland, and led by Germany, Poland, and Denmark, has handed over its previous responsibilities for Estonia and Latvia. It will henceforth serve as a tactical headquarters managing NATO operations exclusively in Poland and Lithuania.

This area of responsibility includes the geostrategically highly sensitive Suwałki Gap, which runs from Belarus along the Polish-Lithuanian border to Kaliningrad.

NATO strategists view this corridor as a primary potential target for a Russian offensive.

According to a recent statement from the German Federal Ministry of Defense, the new role assigned to the 1st German-Netherlands Corps strengthens “the role of Europe within NATO.”

“NATO 3.0” advances: The theses of Elbridge Colby

The Europeanization of NATO is taking place in full coordination with the US, and under direct American pressure.

This strategic alignment was demonstrated during the NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels on February 12 by statements from Elbridge Colby.

Colby, an influential Pentagon figure who serves as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, attended the meeting on behalf of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

According to Colby, NATO is currently entering a new historical phase. While the alliance focused on the collective transatlantic struggle against the Soviet Union in the decades following its founding, it shifted its focus after 1990 to out-of-area operations far beyond its borders, such as in Yugoslavia and later in Afghanistan.

Colby described this as the transition from “NATO 1.0” to “NATO 2.0.” Today, however, the task is to execute the transition to “NATO 3.0.”

This shift is driven by the reality that the US is currently focusing on new priorities: on one hand, new military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, and on the other, establishing a more robust presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition, Colby explained that the US must maintain the capacity to wage war on multiple fronts simultaneously.

US pushes Germany to lead

Colby further indicated that this geopolitical reality requires European nations to provide for their own defense to the greatest extent possible.

With the exception of nuclear deterrence, the US no longer possesses sufficient reserve capacity to secure Europe.

Consequently, European NATO members must not only continue to increase their military spending but also urgently expand their military capabilities.

The objective is to strengthen not only overall “readiness” but also weapons and ammunition stockpiles, alongside “industrial capacities” for all forms of defense production.

If this is achieved, Colby argued, NATO will emerge from its current challenges stronger than before.

In late April, Colby addressed this topic in detail on X, evaluating the German military strategy adopted at the time.

Colby concluded that the document confirmed Germany is now assuming a “leadership role.” Noting that the Pentagon stands ready to assist European NATO member states, particularly Germany, Colby welcomed the German military strategy as a “clear and credible path toward NATO 3.0.”

The Under Secretary emphasized that the strategy is “highly suitable to rapidly make NATO in Europe genuinely strong.”